Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
urai-router

urai-router

Official
by etside
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

urai_check

Validate LLM API keys by probing one or all with a tiny request and reporting which keys are valid.

Instructions

Probe one or all keys with a tiny request and report which ones are valid.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "urai_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
allNo
providerNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. 'Tiny request' usefully hints at low cost, but it never discloses that probing likely makes outbound calls to the provider, whether it consumes quota or rate limits, whether it requires configured credentials, or what happens when a key is invalid.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, but the brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than from tight editing of rich content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is the only source of information and it omits key details: how validity is reported (per-key list? booleans?), what `provider` scopes, and any credential or network requirements.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain both parameters. 'One or all keys' loosely maps to the `all` boolean, but the `provider` parameter is never mentioned or explained, leaving half the surface undocumented in both schema and prose.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a concrete verb and object: it probes keys with a tiny request and reports validity. That is specific enough to distinguish it from urai_keys (listing) and urai_health (service status) without opening schemas, though it never names a sibling explicitly and leaves 'keys' as a bare noun.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus urai_keys or urai_health, no prerequisites, and no statement about ordering (e.g., after urai_setup or urai_keys). The agent must infer usage purely from the phrase 'check valid keys'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools